So, why isn't this a race? Why is Garneau so passive? Why did Cauchon enter so late? This reminds me of the McGuinty convention, when the 'anybody but Kennedy' wing of the party led to the fifth place candidate to become the premier for way too long. Is this going to be the Federal equivalent of the same thing? Look at how that worked out!

I don't think we will see a rise from the ranks;
Justin Trudeau will be a first ballot victor, and I realize how unlikely that is with eight potential candidates but I get that feeling.

Make no mistake, watching the Liberals cower in fear during the debate made it very clear why many of these folks laid down their $75,000. This is about who gets to lay their hands on the sexy shadow cabinet positions in the next caucus and who gets a sweetheart riding in the next election.

Joyce Murray seems to be the only sane Liberal left, and she wants to merge with the NDP!

A few months ago I made it very clear that I felt that JT would be a fundraising machine who would instantly swoop the Liberals into a double digit lead in Quebec as leader.

Make no mistake, in the polling through summer I suspect that the Liberals will even poll in majority range as most new leaders to get a bump, and in Justin's case a significant one (IMO) the problem is this leadership race is too early.

What was the most positive thing said about Justin in even the most Liberal friendly news outlets? He is underwhelming, far more so then even I imagined.

As for Justin Sinclair's ... oops, Trudeau ... peformance, well ... giggle ... he has the nicest dimple.

Quote:

The debate was virtually devoid of policy substance.

Anyone who arrived looking for fresh ideas on trade, the environment, poverty or native concerns heard a great deal of empathy and calls for action, but very little in the way of what those actions should be, other than to listen and consult.

On the partisan front, the most direct challenge came from B.C. MP Joyce Murray, the only candidate who advocates co-operating with other parties to help defeat the Conservatives in 2015.

When Mr. Trudeau, who opposes the idea, insisted that “it’s not enough to just replace Stephen Harper with somebody else” unless that somebody had a “very, very clear vision of where we’re going forward.” Ms. Murray retorted “if you want to replace Stephen Harper, where’s your plan?”

His plan, Mr. Trudeau responded, involved “reaching out to people across the country.” Which means whatever it means.

[....]

A single debate is just that.

There are four more to come, before the April leadership vote.

But any candidate who wants to challenge Mr. Trudeau’s hegemonic lead needs to disrupt his image of unstoppability by more openly challenging his lack of experience and his vague commitments to “honest, open, strong conversations” that are devoid of content.

The eight can, of course, avoid such tactics in the interest of party unity and in hopes of gaining Mr. Trudeau’s favour after he wins.

Nine Liberals struggled with minimal success to distinguish their candidacies in a debate Sunday that was long on collegiality and short on cut and thrust.

In a two-hour, 15-minute exchange, the leadership candidates — five lawyers, an astronaut, a teacher, a former Canadian Forces lieutenant-colonel and an entrepreneur — mostly agreed on issues, and characterized the Liberal party as a centrist force that bases policies on reason rather than ideology.

Those fretting that front-running candidate Justin Trudeau might not live up to his star billing were surely reassured as the Papineau MP looked relaxed and consistently delivered reasoned points in a speaking style that was direct, to the point and engaging.

He told the Vancouver audience at the Westin Bayshore the leadership contest is “about bringing a new generation together in politics.”

At another point in the debate, Trudeau enthused: “There’s a palpable sense that politics can be exciting again.”

The 41-year old son of the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau, even at this early point in the race, has a significant lead, a new Angus Reid poll shows. It reveals 55 per cent of respondents believe Trudeau will win the April 14 leadership vote to replace Bob Rae. And 40 per cent said they’d be more likely to vote Liberal if he becomes leader.

The only other candidate that would help the Liberal brand is Marc Garneau, with 23 per cent saying they’d be more likely to vote Grit with the former astronaut at the helm.

The poll points to a problem for the seven other contenders; they’re largely unknown. Indeed more than 60 per cent of the poll respondents reported: “I don’t know them at all” when asked for their view of these seven.

That demonstrated the imperative for those lesser-known individuals to use Sunday’s televised debate to try to distinguish themselves.

But that wasn’t possible given the large number of contenders on stage, with each getting only a short period of time to respond to any single debate question.

There are a lot of words you can use to describe the handful of unknowns running for the federal Liberal leadership.

... The past two conventions had no shot at party renewal, no matter how often everyone repeated the phrase.

They were heavily brokered events, with no real grassroots involvement. Entirely controlled by the backroom boys. But the candidates who took the stage in Vancouver didn't possess this aura. You actually got the sense that usually meaningless phrase "the grassroots" actually existed this time around.

[....]

Ultimately, Marc Garneau appeared a formidable contender. The much fawned over Justin Trudeau came across as what he actually is: the youngest, least experienced candidate. There's nothing wrong with being that guy. But put him up against Harper and he'll look and play the fool. Garneau, on the other hand, commands respect.

But talk of saviours is counterproductive. This is the third party, folks. Liberals should welcome the lesser-known candidates and any truth-telling their involvement brings. They, and not Trudeau, are the real path to any Liberal rebuilding.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/s.....93348.html

All of these articles register other points, and are worth reading in their entirety, but these closing remarks by Paul Adams are interesting.''

Quote:

The federal Liberals’ big challenge is how to find a place for themselves between the Harper government, which has abandoned much of its conservative energy on social issues, and the Mulcair NDP, which continues to track towards the centre on economic issues like trade.

The formula favoured by most of the candidates ... that of being economically conservative while socially progressive.

The strategic gamble here seems to be that by 2015 Canadians will be fed up with Harper and his gang and ready for a change in personnel at the top but will want the reassurance of continuity on economic policy.

Martha Hall Findlay articulates this position most clearly. Marc Garneau also embodies it, with a little more nuance. Most importantly, so does Trudeau, albeit with the studied vagueness that befits a frontrunner.
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/0.....ervatives/

Liberals praise "Chretienomics" but never embrace it. I think they need to figure out an economic agenda that is similar to Harper's yet more gentler sounding, coming from a less polarizing figure then Harper would serve them well. Garneau's policy of opening of the telecommunications sector would likely play well with almost everyone. Hall Findlay's supply management policy however might be a bit confusing to campaign on, though she is right. The Liberals also need to embrace more freedoms for people, while they can't win an election on legalizing marajuana I don't think they'd ever lose because of it. Finding a balanced social policy is also needed to get the left, I think it could be smart to run on one major social program with the message of being able to afford only one at a time. Something like pharma care, as opposed to socialized daycare, may be a policy they can better sell today. Pharma care would effect a lot more people. By doing this they could attack the NDP for wanting to spend to much on all their social programs.

The party needs to take policies on the left and policies on the right and mix them together. I don't see anything wrong with them stealing some popular ideas from Harper and Mulcair and then mixing them with their own unique ideas.

I didn't find Trudeau stood out in the debate much, but I didn't find he came off badly.

Garneau and Hall Findlay came off best in my opinion.

He played it safe the entire debate;
Why jeopardize your status as frontrunner by actually saying anything?

Garneau and Hall Findlay did come off very well;
But policy isnt going to win them this election as leader.

Any frontrunner would do what Trudeau did I suppose. As well if he's serious about grassroots engagement in policy that's a good thing. As I think I've said here before they need Liberal policies and not just Dion-policies, Ignatieff-policies, or Trudeau-policies.

Here is the reaction of well known B.C. political pundit, Alex G. Tsakumis, republished with permission:

If this is the idiotic, rhetorical ineffectiveness that the Liberal Party of Canada and their team of fools, think is going to get an unaccomplished, airhead across the goal line before Stephen Harper, then I misjudged the Grits integrity -- they have none. It's grotesquely offensive to me as a Canadian that the Liberal Party of Canada has clearly learned nothing from the progressively more punishing rebuke they earned, thrice, at the polls. Win, by all means. But the offering of Justin Trudeau as anything even approaching a legitimate, credible candidate, is so utterly and completely insulting to the intelligence of the Canadian public. Being in public life shouldn't be on-the-job training. His interview with Jas Johal tonight, only confirms that Trudeau has not only inherited his mother's looks, but her brains, too. Very disappointing, and a contemptible disregard for real issues. Just fluff. And beyond belief that anyone in the media could possibly take him in any way seriously. Beyond belief.

I've actually be surprised by some of the policy we have seen from Trudeau, Nexen takeover and gun registry for instance, and I think he's coming off better then what I would have expected from him. I still find his resume weak but I have to say he does appear to have some leadership skills. I think he could make a good Liberal leader, though not a good Prime Minister. To clarify I think he recognizes some of the issues with the party's brand, he knows they need a mix of policies from left to right, he can raise money and reinvigorate the party. I think he is capable of making the party stronger and putting in places everything that is needed for the next leader to be Prime Minister. My fear is though that Canadians won't look past his smile and hair and could very well elect him. Trudeau may not know when it's time to step down if in fact he rebuilds the party but can't get in to the PMO.

In Newfoundland and Labrador it was Gerry Ottenheimer, his half brother was a cabinet minister under Williams and he was a CPC candidate last election, who built the Progressive Conservative Party in the late 1960's and 70's and then stepped down, without ever leading the party in an election, in favour of Frank Moores, who was an MP. Moores gets credit for defeating Smallwood but it was in large part thanks to Ottenheimer's work throughout the province in organizing the party that it was able to finally become a serious alternative. While Trudeau will likely have to lead his party into two elections he might be able to do enough work on the ground to make them a true alternative.

He seems to be associated with a coherent group that is true to one of the better parts of the Trudeau tradition -- his future orientation, and his technocratic approach.

Some of these people were previously associated with Gerrard Kennedy, whose candidacy had some of the same buzz of glamour about it. And they aren't stupid.

The ability to draw a crowd, and get them to listen to you is a real political asset, and Trudeau fils has that. I doubt if he has to fear the label of 'air head' as much as being perceived as 'feckless dreamer'.

That's why the group behind Trudeau is important. I once characterized him as the 'hood ornament' on a political machine that we has yet to be unveiled. I still think it's a good analogy.

The leader doesn't have to be the smartest guy in the room. A guy with the instincts of a statesman, backed by a competent group of disinterested idea people, can produce a lot of appealing policy. It's probably not policy that would be to my taste, but it would be 'appealing' by technocratic standards.

His campaign team seems to be made up of strong, competent, young Liberals who know change is needed. As you said his team is similar to Kennedy's, and he talked about reform in 2006.

The best thing Trudeau has going for him is that he can attract a crowd and can get competent people to support him. Like you said he doesn't need to be the smartest person, but he needs smart people around him. Though his record can be criticized the fact that Dwight Duncan says he may run federally under Trudeau is a big asset for him.

His campaign team seems to be made up of strong, competent, young Liberals who know change is needed. As you said his team is similar to Kennedy's, and he talked about reform in 2006.

The best thing Trudeau has going for him is that he can attract a crowd and can get competent people to support him. Like you said he doesn't need to be the smartest person, but he needs smart people around him. Though his record can be criticized the fact that Dwight Duncan says he may run federally under Trudeau is a big asset for him.

I think any Liberal who thinks they can win will opt to run Federally under any leader who can get them elected.

Here is the reaction of well known B.C. political pundit, Alex G. Tsakumis, republished with permission:

If this is the idiotic, rhetorical ineffectiveness that the Liberal Party of Canada and their team of fools, think is going to get an unaccomplished, airhead across the goal line before Stephen Harper, then I misjudged the Grits integrity -- they have none. It's grotesquely offensive to me as a Canadian that the Liberal Party of Canada has clearly learned nothing from the progressively more punishing rebuke they earned, thrice, at the polls. Win, by all means. But the offering of Justin Trudeau as anything even approaching a legitimate, credible candidate, is so utterly and completely insulting to the intelligence of the Canadian public. Being in public life shouldn't be on-the-job training. His interview with Jas Johal tonight, only confirms that Trudeau has not only inherited his mother's looks, but her brains, too. Very disappointing, and a contemptible disregard for real issues. Just fluff. And beyond belief that anyone in the media could possibly take him in any way seriously. Beyond belief.

Pretty well says it, doesn't it?

I couldn't disagree more.
Lets face it, the Liberals have opted for "integrity" by having arguably the smartest constitutional scholar to have sat an an MP in a century as their leader, followed by arguable the single most intelligent leader the Liberals have run since Pearson.

Integrity ain't selling 500 dollar a plate fundraisers out.

Electing Trudeau leader is a party that is acknowledging reality;
They are the 3rd party in Parliament, and if Daniel Pallie can do what some fear he might the Liberals selecting another middle aged leader of "integrity" could bounce them into the 4th spot.

This isn't a party that feels its a leader away from returning to glory, this is the actions of a party knowing they are the wrong leader away from Oblivion.

This isn't about parking Trudeau across from Harper;
Its about parking Trudeau up against May, Mulcair, and Pallie.

This is about being able to refill the Liberal Caucus with quality MP's and being able to form a functional and intelligent argument against Harper and the Conservatives in the next term.

The reality is the NDP caucus in Quebec is a joke; you just need to tune into French political programs to realize how much of a joke they truly are in the eyes of Quebec voters, however they at present don't have an alternative so they tolerate"Equipe Mulcair".

There are plenty of quality municipal and former Provincial Liberals looking for work, and picking off some 23 year old NDPer is the easiest route to that.

The Liberals need to get back to 90 - 100 seats, and then spent four years hogging the mic as opposition critics and allowing Justin to grow into the job he has rather then expecting him to be ready in 2015.

Here is the reaction of well known B.C. political pundit, Alex G. Tsakumis, republished with permission:

If this is the idiotic, rhetorical ineffectiveness that the Liberal Party of Canada and their team of fools, think is going to get an unaccomplished, airhead across the goal line before Stephen Harper, then I misjudged the Grits integrity -- they have none. It's grotesquely offensive to me as a Canadian that the Liberal Party of Canada has clearly learned nothing from the progressively more punishing rebuke they earned, thrice, at the polls. Win, by all means. But the offering of Justin Trudeau as anything even approaching a legitimate, credible candidate, is so utterly and completely insulting to the intelligence of the Canadian public. Being in public life shouldn't be on-the-job training. His interview with Jas Johal tonight, only confirms that Trudeau has not only inherited his mother's looks, but her brains, too. Very disappointing, and a contemptible disregard for real issues. Just fluff. And beyond belief that anyone in the media could possibly take him in any way seriously. Beyond belief.

Pretty well says it, doesn't it?

I couldn't disagree more.
Lets face it, the Liberals have opted for "integrity" by having arguably the smartest constitutional scholar to have sat an an MP in a century as their leader, followed by arguable the single most intelligent leader the Liberals have run since Pearson.

Integrity ain't selling 500 dollar a plate fundraisers out.

Electing Trudeau leader is a party that is acknowledging reality;
They are the 3rd party in Parliament, and if Daniel Pallie can do what some fear he might the Liberals selecting another middle aged leader of "integrity" could bounce them into the 4th spot.

This isn't a party that feels its a leader away from returning to glory, this is the actions of a party knowing they are the wrong leader away from Oblivion.

This isn't about parking Trudeau across from Harper;
Its about parking Trudeau up against May, Mulcair, and Pallie.

This is about being able to refill the Liberal Caucus with quality MP's and being able to form a functional and intelligent argument against Harper and the Conservatives in the next term.

The reality is the NDP caucus in Quebec is a joke; you just need to tune into French political programs to realize how much of a joke they truly are in the eyes of Quebec voters, however they at present don't have an alternative so they tolerate"Equipe Mulcair".

There are plenty of quality municipal and former Provincial Liberals looking for work, and picking off some 23 year old NDPer is the easiest route to that.

The Liberals need to get back to 90 - 100 seats, and then spent four years hogging the mic as opposition critics and allowing Justin to grow into the job he has rather then expecting him to be ready in 2015.

I couldn't disagree more.
Lets face it, the Liberals have opted for "integrity" by having arguably the smartest constitutional scholar to have sat an an MP in a century as their leader, followed by arguable the single most intelligent leader the Liberals have run since Pearson.

Integrity ain't selling 500 dollar a plate fundraisers out.

Electing Trudeau leader is a party that is acknowledging reality;
They are the 3rd party in Parliament, and if Daniel Pallie can do what some fear he might the Liberals selecting another middle aged leader of "integrity" could bounce them into the 4th spot.

This isn't a party that feels its a leader away from returning to glory, this is the actions of a party knowing they are the wrong leader away from Oblivion.

This isn't about parking Trudeau across from Harper;
Its about parking Trudeau up against May, Mulcair, and Pallie.

This is about being able to refill the Liberal Caucus with quality MP's and being able to form a functional and intelligent argument against Harper and the Conservatives in the next term.

The reality is the NDP caucus in Quebec is a joke; you just need to tune into French political programs to realize how much of a joke they truly are in the eyes of Quebec voters, however they at present don't have an alternative so they tolerate"Equipe Mulcair".

There are plenty of quality municipal and former Provincial Liberals looking for work, and picking off some 23 year old NDPer is the easiest route to that.

The Liberals need to get back to 90 - 100 seats, and then spent four years hogging the mic as opposition critics and allowing Justin to grow into the job he has rather then expecting him to be ready in 2015.

Who's talking about intelligence? I mean to talk about statesmanship!

I cited the bit above because I like to watch media people foam, and thought others might too.

To be clear, I think intelligence is vastly over-rated. It's on the list of important qualities of real leaders, to be sure, but the leader doesn't have to be the brightest star in the heavens. A leader is to be judged on the quality of his/her decisions. Your own examples of Dion and Ignatieff prove the point -- it takes more than brains. It takes heart.

Besides a certain minimum of intelligence, there are other requirements, such as fluency in both English and French (a bar that keeps our best prospects out of the candidate pool) the ability to fund-raise, and build an organization, and then manage a Parliamentary caucus. Plus, vitally important -- political experience and judgement.

The leader has to have qualities of character -- persistence and determination, and a toughness about him/her; but on the other hand, he/she should also have flexibility, and diplomatic skills, and to understand people. That's the thing -- the leader needs a suite of characteristics beyond 'put-the-square-peg-in-the-square-hole' intelligence.

Trudeau can put some bums in some seats. That is definitely a political asset. He seems to have the savvy to attract a team that's full of ideas. Give him credit. Can he build an organization, etc.? We can't judge this, except he seems to be doing it fairly well right now.

But what about his character? He is obviously not a 'bad man' but does he have the strength of character that would be required? He seems kind of feckless ...actually, I think it's this aimlessness that gives people the impression that he's an air-head. Does he have any of that 'just-watch-me' toughness of Trudeau pere? Does he have any real goals he wants to achieve?

It seems to me that what we have seen so far has been the product of a committee that's running Trudeau's candidacy -- and we know bugger all about that committee.

========================

We are back at the old 'political realism' argument which you counter-pose to 'integrity'. Cosmo makes too much of his case ... it seems to me the Liberals went to Dion because of Kennedy's convention antics ... and the reluctance, on some people's part, to pick a prominent New Democrat as the next Liberal leader. And Ignatieff didn't even face an election. His was a case of opportunism ... a glittering resumé covering a fey narcissist who lacked real political experience, and who (really) felt Canada was a place to be admired from afar, rather than a place to live.

They weren't going for 'integrity' at the time. They were trying to get away from the stink of ADSCAM.

But put that aside -- what is 'political realism' for the Liberal party, going forward?

Is it to revive the elements of Trudeau-ism -- possibly including separatism -- and to look for someone with rock-star charisma to lead them back, motivating the young with head-in-the-clouds idealism(s)?

Personally, I think that's a fantasy. That's how they did it 45 years ago, when the first wave of baby-boomers began to vote. It's not likely in a country where the first wave of boomers are retiring, and looking forward to enjoying all those benefits that Trudeau pere promised them.

But what else do they have, that they can (mostly) agree on, and which is do-able?

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum